Unclear whether blue light is effective in treating acne vulgaris

Référence

Scott AM, Stehlik P, Clark J, et al. Blue-light therapy for acne vulgaris: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Fam Med 2019;17(6):545-553.

Sommaire

These authors searched several databases and clinical trials registries to identify randomized trials that evaluated blue-light therapy for treating patients with acne vulgaris. Additionally, to supplement the electronic searches, the authors searched the citations and looked for studies that cited the included studies. This was a well-done attempt to identify all the relevant studies. They included studies that used pretty much any comparison treatment, including sham. Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and resolved discrepancies by discussion or with a third party. Ultimately, they included 14 studies (with 698 patients), only 4 of which reported data suitable for meta-analysis. Most of the studies were of short duration (less than 3 months) and most were at high risk of bias (the lack of masking and issues related to randomization being the most pervasive problems). The studies recruited patients mainly with mild to moderately severe acne. The studies showed no consistent improvements with blue-light therapy over sham treatment, no treatment, or topical agents.